Thomas & Ors v PGI Group Ltd (includes Costs Ruling) [2021] EWHC 2776 (QB) (19 October 2021)

Thomas & Ors v PGI Group Ltd (includes Costs Ruling) [2021] EWHC 2776 (QB) (19 October 2021)

It is not appropriate to cap the Claimants' recoverable future costs at a figure less than the minimum required to litigate their claims effectively in the High Court. The preconditions for a Costs Capping Order under CPR 3.19(5) are not satisfied, as there is no substantial risk that costs will be disproportionately incurred if costs budgeting is used. The Claimants' objectives, including vindication and public interest, render the anticipated costs proportionate despite the low potential damages. The application for a CCO is refused.

Citation
[2021] EWHC 2776
Parties
Claimant: Magret Thomas and Others; Defendant: PGI Group Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 October 2021
Procedural Posture
Costs Application in Civil Proceedings / Ruling on Application for Costs Capping Order at Costs and Case Management Conference
Outcome
Defendant's application for a Costs Capping Order refused.
Legal Topics
Costs Capping Orders, Costs Budgeting, Proportionality of Costs, Jurisdiction, Personal Injury, Human Rights
Civil Procedure Costs Costs Capping Orders Costs Budgeting Proportionality of Costs Jurisdiction Personal Injury Human Rights

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Magret Thomas and Others

Claimant

PGI Group Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Costs Application in Civil Proceedings / Ruling on Application for Costs Capping Order at Costs and Case Management Conference

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a Costs Capping Order (CCO) should be made under CPR 3.19 limiting the Claimants' recoverable future costs to £150,000.
  2. 2 Whether the preconditions for a CCO under CPR 3.19(5) are satisfied, including proportionality and adequacy of costs budgeting.
  3. 3 Whether it is permissible to cap recoverable costs below the minimum required to litigate the claim effectively.

Ratio Decidendi

It is not appropriate to cap the Claimants' recoverable future costs at a figure less than the minimum required to litigate their claims effectively in the High Court. The preconditions for a Costs Capping Order under CPR 3.19(5) are not satisfied, as there is no substantial risk that costs will be disproportionately incurred if costs budgeting is used. The Claimants' objectives, including vindication and public interest, render the anticipated costs proportionate despite the low potential damages. The application for a CCO is refused.

Court Disposition

Defendant's application for a Costs Capping Order refused.

Orders

  • No Costs Capping Order is made.
  • Costs budgeting to proceed in the usual way.